> You have to weigh the consequences of the escape against the consequences of not mass vaccinating
Yes, agreed.
At this point we're talking in circles. It's obvious you believe that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the potential consequences of vaccine induced immune escape, even though you admit that "it's unclear" whether compulsory mass vaccination will make the virus even more lethal and potentially lead to even more suffering and death.
I won't continue on with the debate because no further evidence is being provided, and frankly we're in agreement that the calculus is intractable right now, and only in disagreement on whether it's acceptable to call compulsory mass vaccination a public health risk, so it's just semantics at this point.
> one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus
Here is some literature that provides preliminary answers [1][2]. The summary is that natural infection induces an immune response which includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies, whereas vaccination using the current mRNA formulations does not. Compared to natural infection, vaccination induces an immune response that is more highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. In terms of individual health outcomes, neither of these papers address whether natural infection offers better or worse immune protection compared to vaccination.
[2] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
Not talking in circles I think - I'm happy with where we landed. Sorry I started off harsh. You sounded too close to an antivaxxer trying to pass your opinions off as authoritative, and semantics really do matter there. I'm glad to see your ideas are much more nuanced and I think we largely agree at this point. To get any clearer we probably need input from proper vaccinologists. And hopefully they are informing policy, although that's no guarantee in this bungled response we've had.
Yes, agreed.
At this point we're talking in circles. It's obvious you believe that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the potential consequences of vaccine induced immune escape, even though you admit that "it's unclear" whether compulsory mass vaccination will make the virus even more lethal and potentially lead to even more suffering and death.
I won't continue on with the debate because no further evidence is being provided, and frankly we're in agreement that the calculus is intractable right now, and only in disagreement on whether it's acceptable to call compulsory mass vaccination a public health risk, so it's just semantics at this point.
> one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus
Here is some literature that provides preliminary answers [1][2]. The summary is that natural infection induces an immune response which includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies, whereas vaccination using the current mRNA formulations does not. Compared to natural infection, vaccination induces an immune response that is more highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. In terms of individual health outcomes, neither of these papers address whether natural infection offers better or worse immune protection compared to vaccination.
[1] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4
[2] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/